Say “NO” To Singapore Transport Fare Increase

[kuasimi]

https://www.facebook.com/The-Alterna...type=3&theater


Train disruption alert:

No service between Admiralty and Kranji in both directions.

[kuasimi]

https://www.facebook.com/The-Alterna...type=3&theater



There's reality. And there's PAP and MSM's version of reality.

[kuasimi]

[kuasimi]

[AC_Milan]

Originally Posted by kuasimi

as usual, your hypocritical duty is to constantly attacked, purposely find the slightest fault, intentionally made false accusations against our govt and your ulterior motive is to brain wash Singaporean and destroy our peaceful stable country !


low class scum opposition parties like you, the foreign media and private social blogs/chatrooms/Facebooks are out in full force lurking at all internet forum(S) to discredit our govt !


fellow Singaporean, pls beware !!!

[kuasimi]

Today still same issue. Nothing improved.

[kuasimi]

https://www.facebook.com/leonperera7...21826174642219

A busy weekend, with two walkabouts at Serangoon Avenue 4! Heard different perspectives on local and national issues from many constituents. There’s been much discussion about the need for the Workers’ Party to put forward alternative policies.

There has been less discussion about how the government should respond to such alternative policies. WP MPs have been conveying alternative policy ideas inside and outside of Parliament for years. There are a few possible ways the government can respond to these ideas:

𝐚. 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐮𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐝. 𝐒𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐚 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐚 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐲.

Of course, many voices may have contributed to prompting that policy change, not only the WP voice. But it would be good for the public to know when and by what pathway such changes happen, through fair media reporting and good public commentary.

𝐛. 𝐀𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐚 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥, 𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞-𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞. 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐧, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐚, 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐬𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐝𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐞𝐝.

Data and evidence can be subject to more than one reasonable interpretation. For example, the government conducts many public opinion surveys using state funds. I have raised in Parliament the question of why all of these surveys are not automatically published for use by civil society, scholars and alternative parties to better formulate alternative policy ideas.

Of course, sometimes evidence overwhelmingly suggests that something is a bad idea. But sometimes the evidence is inconclusive. The result of a new policy idea can rarely be guessed with complete certainty, unlike outcomes in the natural sciences. There can be different views about future outcomes of the same policy that are consistent with the available evidence. We ought to acknowledge that. Let’s have more transparency about underlying evidence and data.

𝐜. 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐚. 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐰𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐭.

This is what the Workers’ Party called for when it suggested a randomized controlled trial for the impact of smaller form class sizes in schools, through a Parliamentary adjournment motion in 2017.

𝐝. 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐲 𝐚𝐯𝐨𝐢𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚 𝐝𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. 𝐇𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐚 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐰.

The WP had mooted an alternative policy approach to POFMA, namely that correction directives be approved by judges (among other things). If you read the way the Minister responded to this alternative idea in the excerpt below, do you think that the alternative was seriously considered and addressed?

One hopes that alternative ideas are debated vigorously in Parliament with respect to options (a), (b) and (c) above, and not (d).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): I would like to pose a clarification to the Law Minister. I had intended originally to pose a clarification to Mr Cedric Foo. But I think in light of the Law Minister's comments at this point, I will just pose some clarification to him.

It is quite simple. Is it the position of the Law Minister and the Government that our Courts could not be sufficiently resourced, structured, if necessary a new process, a new expedited process created, if necessary a new process for assigning judges created, additional capacity created? Is it impossible?

Is it inconceivable that this could be done in the future in order to issue interim prima facie decisions in urgent, time-sensitive cases under POFMA? Is that impossible by definition?

By definition is that impossible in the future if we take all these steps to put in the resources to put in the process, if necessary create a special of class of judges, so on, so forth. Is that impossible by definition?

And I would add that in other jurisdictions to the best of my knowledge, and I may stand corrected, in other jurisdictions, for example, in some states in the US, it is my understanding that an arrest warrant has to be approved by a judge under certain circumstances.

These arrest warrants are very time-sensitive and the judge has to make a decision on the balance of probabilities, whether to arrest the person. That is a serious matter. Whether to arrest a person in extremely time-sensitive circumstances. Sometimes, late at night the law enforcers will go and see the judge. Because that system has been created and structured and resourced in such a way that it is possible. So, that is my clarification.

Mr K Shanmugam: A number of points here. The first of which is this. Let us take the sequence, the process of these things. First, you got to draft something and file in Court. We are now talking about the Select Committee's recommendation to do something within a matter of hours. You got to draft and file.

You got to put aside some time for that. After that, you must find the judge. Let us say in your scenario, we have a High Court Judge who does nothing but sits there 24/7 because it can break out anytime, and will be available as soon as the Government calls. It is technically not impossible.

Of course, you can have a Judge who does nothing but this, and no other cases. Because if he is hearing a case, he cannot break the case and come and listen to you. He has to go to finish the case for the sitting, until lunch time or until the evening, depending on the scenario.

Duty Judges hear their cases too. So, we are saying, if supposing something has happened and I want to stop the communication within the next two hours, do you think it is possible by going to Court?

Then, there are further factors which have further levels of uncertainty. You file, you go before a Judge and you say, "Look, Judge, it is so urgent that I am not going to serve this on Google, Facebook or whoever, wherever it is spreading. I just need an urgent order, ex parte, and then later on I will serve". Sometimes, the Judge may agree but the Judge may also disagree.

Supposing he disagrees, then it takes a further length of time. The decision maker, the person who has the facts might take one view and the responsibility for dealing with that situation also rests with the Executive.

Have you not known of instances where within 24 hours, there have been riots and people have been killed? Supposing the Judge says, "I think I would like to hear the other side, urgent as it is".

It has happened. Urgent ex parte applications have been heard on a contested basis. Any of these are possible. The Judge could give you ex parte. But he could also ask for contested ex parte.

He could ask the other side to turn up quickly. And if he does that, and the other side turns up, and then, they say, "We do not have time to file an affidavit but we want to know the basic facts before we can argue. We need until this evening; we need until tomorrow morning." Once you set up a Court process, then, you must allow for the due process.

So, my point to you, Mr Perera is, having now heard this explanation, is it your position that definitionally, it is possible, every single time, whenever we want it to be dealt with urgently, that it can be dealt with urgently, in a matter of hours? Is that your position?

Mr Speaker: Mr Perera.

Mr Leon Perera: I thank the Law Minister for his explanation. And I think that there are a number of points that he made which relate to judicial capacity, for want of a better term, and process. I would imagine that, based on what the Law Minister has said, he can envisage, that the necessary capacity can be created to deal with such a caseload, based on what Law Minister said.

Mr K Shanmugam: Possible, if the Judge does nothing else but waits for the applications. That was what I said.

Mr Leon Perera: Yes. So, I would take it that necessary capacity can be created. We can create a special class of Courts, duty Judges. Capacity is a question of resource planning. So, with sufficient resources applied, necessary capacity can be created.

Next, there is an issue of process. And I think the Law Minister alluded to the fact that while the Government will have to word the submission, even an ex parte submission to the Court, and that is time consuming, and while this is going on, the clock is ticking away and the falsehood is viralising and so on.

But within the Ministry, or the Statutory Board or agency, the civil servants also have to word the submission to the Minister or communicate with the Minister.

Can we not create a process whereby the communication, the form and the format of communication between the civil servant and the Minister, is very similar to the form and format of communication between the Government and the Court in those very time-sensitive cases, to obtain an initial prima facie decision?

So, my point there is that I think, at the level of process, a process can be created to minimise the time lag from Ministry to Court. I would put it to the Minister that a process can be created in that way.

And I think we have addressed the issue of capacity and we have addressed the issue of process. The Minister has been talking about the current situation, right now, with the capacity we have and the process we have. If we can add more resources and capacity, and we change the process to make it expedited to arrive at that prima facie decision, to stop the viralisation, I would put it to the Law Minister that that is perfectly conceivable.

And I also want to address the other point that the Minister made, that in some cases, the Judge will not agree. That is precisely the point. In some cases, the Judge will not agree.

If the Judge feels that he is being asked to make a prima facie decision, but he is looking at it on a balance of probabilities and he feels that the Executive is over-reaching or the Executive is abusing its power, so he may not agree in that case. And that is precisely the value of the check.


Mr K Shanmugam: I would ask Mr Perera not to put words in my mouth. When I said "not agree", it may be because he says, "I want to hear what the other side has got to say".

So, my point to Mr Perera is: therefore, we can take it, and it will be very simple, can I take it your position is that, definitionally, every single time it is necessary to make a decision, you believe that the Courts can be used to make a decision to break the virality within a matter of hours; every single time, when it is necessary to do so? Is that your Party's position? Is that your position? If it is yes, yes. If it is no, no. That is all. It will be very good to clarify that.

Mr Leon Perera: If the Courts are sufficiently structured and resourced and the process is defined to enable that to happen, then the answer is yes.


Mr K Shanmugam: And you believe that that can be done by simply putting some submission to the Court? Is that it, whatever the civil servant submits to the Minister, can simply be submitted to the Court?


Mr Leon Perera: What I am saying to the hon Minister is that a simplified process can be created to absolutely minimise the lead time between Minister and Court to get a decision. There is a certain amount of lead time, in any case, for the internal conversation between civil servants and Ministers in such cases.

What we are talking about is the additional lead time between the Minister and the Court to get that decision to break the virality. So, I would put it to the Minister that a process can be defined that is very simplified to minimise that lead time.

Mr K Shanmugam: Yes. I have got the clarifications I needed, Sir. Thank you.

Mr Speaker: Thank you. Mr Leon Perera, your speech.

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/sprs...ortid=bill-366

[kuasimi]

https://www.facebook.com/pritam.euno...47939928561630


-PRITAM SINGH-

TC Case
————
The public can read our short submissions on the matter of the Plaintiff’s application to amend their Statement of Claim after judgment has been rendered, on our blog - In Good Faith (https://ingoodfaith.blog).

https://ingoodfaith.blog/2020/08/03/...ment-of-claim/

(In response to CNA article issued on 3 Aug 2020, in link below)

https://www.facebook.com/21135232888...7939928561630/



https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/ahtc-lawsuit-wp-leaders-object-to-plaintiff-new-claims-12986488?cid=FBcna&fbclid=IwAR2nAseKKi9CbP1eRrRhbD 9ujEn3J4xXnWOlTNO_dVL3mfuv2Wehv4R4WnI

[kuasimi]

[kuasimi]

[kuasimi]

[kuasimi]

[kuasimi]

https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...ustain-losses/


Transport Ministry on profit making of train operators: They can't sustain losses

by Correspondent 13/07/2019



Yesterday, a member of the public, Mr Adam Reutens-Tan, wrote to ST Forum pointing out that train operators like SMRT and SBS Transit should not be focusing on profits as public service providers (‘Train operators, as public service providers, should not be focusing on profits‘, 12 Jul).

“SMRT and SBS Transit are supposed to be providing public transportation, one of several basic public services which should always remain affordable for the masses to ensure an acceptable quality of life,” Adam wrote. “Such service providers should be seen almost as public servants because they are providing a public service.”

Adam reminded that as public service providers, the train operators should not be focusing on generating increasingly higher overall profits for themselves.

In response, Ms Geraldine Low, the Director of Land Transport Division at the Ministry of Transport, wrote in to refute Adam saying that the train operators cannot keep on sustaining losses (‘Rail operators cannot sustain large losses for long‘, 13 Jul).

She pointed out that for the financial year ending on March 31, 2018, SMRT Trains reported a loss of $86 million while SBS Transit’s Downtown Line has similarly registered losses of $125 million over the past three years. “Its (SBS Trainsit’s) train division as a whole also lost tens of millions of dollars,” she added.

“No rail operator can sustain such large losses for long, without performance degradation.”

She then brought in arguments concerning the workers’ livelihoods, “As responsible employers, they also need to ensure that their workers’ livelihoods are not affected.”

“Our common objective is to deliver a reliable and affordable MRT service for all Singaporeans,” she concluded.
What happened to the profits made in earlier years?

However, what Ms Low did not disclose was that in earlier years, SMRT was making obscene profits with the bulk passed on to Temasek Holdings as dividends especially during the years when Saw Phaik Hwa was in-charge.




For example, in every financial year from 2000 to 2015, SMRT earned an operating profit in the range of $84.2 million to $197.2 million. There was never a year in which SMRT made a loss. And from FY2001 to FY2015, SMRT paid out a total dividend sum of $1.6 billion with the bulk went to Temasek.

A report from DBS in 2012 also noted that SMRT had a dividend payout policy of at least 60% of net profit, and in some years, had paid out even more than 70% of their net profit as dividends.

In fact, Saw was so busy trying to make money for SMRT and paying out dividends to Temasek that she did not want to re-invest too much money back into rail maintenance. This was disclosed at a Committee of Inquiry (COI) convened in 2012 over lapses in SMRT while under her watch.

At the COI, the Attorney-General’s Chambers, represented by Second Solicitor-General Lionel Yee, presented data showing how SMRT’s repair maintenance budget did not change much from the financial years 2002 to 2011, amid ageing assets, increased ridership and increased train frequencies. She also let go of staff to save cost, resulting in the reduction of company’s manpower cost while boosting the bottom line.

At one point in the inquiry, a member of the COI, Prof Lim of NTU, got so frustrated with the defensiveness of Saw with regard to the ‘third rail’ sagging issue that he retorted, “You knew the risks, and you didn’t do enough. You implemented cable ties.”

In any case, Saw’s livelihood was never compromised when she was working for SMRT. In an interview after she quit SMRT, she told the media then that she owns a Can-Am Spyder motorbike, a Ferrari and a Mercedes-Benz S500. In fact, her landed property was so big that the porch of her house could house all 3 vehicles.

She justified the high salary of close to $2 million that she earned every year saying that this was decided by shareholders, which of course Temasek was the major shareholder. “Every year, the shareholders get to vote. They see my package. It’s in black and white in every annual report and they approve it. So what can I say?” she argued.

So, while it’s true that train operators can’t sustain losses for long as pointed out by the Transport Ministry, it certainly wasn’t complaining when the operators were making obscene profits from Singaporeans.

[kuasimi]

[kuasimi]

https://www.facebook.com/workerspart...03398136343402


We are concerned that the government's policies will raise the cost of living and increase financial pressures on the sandwiched class. Here's a breakdown of the impact of a petrol price hike and the impending increase in GST.